MEMORANDUM

Carlos Luis appeals the denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief under 22 U.S.C. § 2254 . We have jurisdiction under 22 U.S.C. § 2253 (a), and we affirm.

1. Luis fails to identify any error in the instructions on first-degree murder and second-degree fetal murder—the offenses on which he was convicted. Under these circumstances, we can find no due process violation. Errors in state-law jury instructions alone will not sustain a federal due process claim. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 71-72 , 112 S.Ct. 475 , 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991). Although he claims that error in the instructions on lesser-included offenses infected his trial, he offers no explanation for how the alleged errors relieved the government of its obligation to prove beyond a reasonable doubt all elements of the offenses on which he was actually convicted. Middleton v. McNeil, 541 U.S. 433, 437 , 124 S.Ct.. 1830, 158 L.Ed.2d 701 (2004).

2. Luis has not identified any independent due process right to have the jury correctly instructed on all lesser-included offenses. The Ninth Circuit has long rejected this type of habeas claim in non-capital cases, because the United States Supreme Court has expressly left this issue undecided. See Solis v. Garcia, 219 F.3d 922, 928 (9th Cir. 2000).

Even assuming such a claim existed, the California Court of Appeal found no error in the disputed instructions. People v. Luis, B240741, 2013 WL 4223695 , at *11 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 13, 2013). Moreover, the California Court of Appeal determined that any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. Luis has not demonstrated that these conclusions were unreasonable. See Davis v. Ayala, — U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 2187, 2198-99 , 192 L.Ed.2d 323 (2015) (holding that where a state court applies the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard “a federal court may not award habeas relief under § 2254 unless the harmlessness determination itself was unreasonable.” (emphasis in original) (quoting Fry v. Pliler, 551 U.S. 112, 119 , 127 S.Ct. 2321 , 168 L.Ed.2d 16 (2007))).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.